ZeeMore21

This isn't about whether Behavioral's formula makes sense or not. He/she is not in the humanities, so I do have the right to counter what has been argued. What he/she is arguing is that committees create a formula based on their admitted applicants and use this formula when the next admissions cycle comes around. I am not in the sciences or social sciences, but I can speak on behalf of humanities since I have learned from professors what they look for when looking at humanities applications. What I am arguing, and will continue to argue is that there is no formula used to make predictions about what applicants will be chosen the next round. I am speaking strictly about humanities. If there was a formula used, then admissions results would be more predictable. However, we find that these results are not predictable. This is explained because admissions committees rotate yearly, and criteria for admissions also changes. For example, one year, an admissions committee might be looking for more American History scholars, but in another different year, they may be looking for Middle Eastern history scholars. Academic politics, whether one likes it or not, also may have something to do with who gets admitted, and this factor would not be addressed in a formula. There are way too many factors that go in the admissions process, and I see no way how a formula could be created that could be relied on to make future decisions...I actually think it would be irresponsible for a prediction formula to be used. For something arbitrary such as admissions, I disagree that prediction formulas are used, anyone who has sat on a humanities admissions committee can feel free to correct me. Sorry ktel, that this thread turned into this type of debate. I thought that the thread was pretty informative until I came upon the post about Master students. From the humanities perspective, I believe many go into doctorate programs because a Masters degree usually isn't enough. I am in English, for example, and most English majors choose to go into PhDs because most decide to teach. I guess it depends on the field.

Mistake, see below

Like I've said before, there is no cut and dry formula. Regardless of the formula you propose, I'm sure many humanities admission committee are happy with the way they do things. They are qualified enough to know who belongs in their programs or not without fussing over a ridiculous formula that isn't fool proof.

I'm not familiar with the Spencer model that your are proposing Behavioral, but I doubt that school committees go by that model when they make their decisions. There isn't a cut and dry formula they use, which explains why there are many applicants with 4.0 GPAs and perfect GREs that still don't get admitted. Having passion in your field of study goes a long way, and it doesn't necessarily have to be conveyed at the quantitative level. Materials such as a writing sample and personal statement are weighed much more heavily in the humanities. If you have great grades but can't write or communicate effectively, you don't belong in a doctorate program.

Would like to know what the person who voted me down's logic is. I think it is unnecessary.

I think your claim that MAs don't get into top programs is bogus, and I take offense to your generalization being someone who did get an M.A before starting a PhD program. Plus, since you're in marketing and are NOT in the History field, I doubt you have any right to make such careless assumptions. Please don't belittle the hard work that goes into getting an M.A. And trust me, M.As aren't losers like you claim, or else they wouldn't have even gotten into graduate school. You might not see, but I'm sure admissions committees do see promise in people who might have struggled in their undergrad. I've had a mentor of mine get a 2.3 GPA and end up completing a PhD at Penn, and is now the head of a department. So your argument that those who get M.As because they had mediocre undergrad scores don't get into top programs is completely false. Your opinion that all those who go to pursue an M.A must have been mediocre or will not succeed is also false. Sorry if this is harsh, just tired of people feeling the need to put others down. Seems as though you are not considering the fact that people with M.As might come across your post and be offended by your generalizations. I've gotten into a school that is at the top of my field after completing my M.A so I think your argument does not hold.

I know I said that I was done with this post, but I had to give you a +1 for this, I ended up rolling on the floor laughing.

I do see what you are saying wtncffts, and I honestly think I am done with this. I was okay with Aarons views until he felt the need to call those who oppose the current gun laws as thugs who want to cause harm to gun holders. He wasn't going to get away with that one. But again, you are right, I am done with this post. This specific poster has a tendency to want to push people's buttons in every single thread, hence his reputation score. I shouldn't even have wasted my time.

And I will say it again--since you choose to ignore this--that citizens have the right to call for stricter gun laws and not be labeled as thugs....I suggest you study carefully what the meaning of a thug is because you are using this term irresponsibly. I, and many others, have the right to question why, when, and how guns are used because we live in a country that is rampant with crime as a result of the lax gun laws you proudly defend. Shame on you for questioning the intentions of those who see the consequences of a gun culture. You want to go around and say illegal guns are the ones to blame for crime...at the end of the day, you have to admit that all guns were purchased legally at some point. Illegal guns are guns that were most likely stolen, which points to the need to enforce stricter gun laws to prevent careless and immature people from being able to purchase a gun for whatever reason. You can stand by your libertarian views all you want...to not even be able to see what is going on around you makes you downright naive. I've had a close friend who was murdered on my very street due to gun violence, so how dare you come here and act childish and naive with your whole "let live" crap. People are dying because of the lax gun laws you and others wave around, and you don't even seem to care. Really, shame on you and goodnight.

I find it ridiculous that you, Aaron, will not even admit how dangerous guns can be...it'd downright shameful. You want to allow everyone and anyone to own a gun, but I have yet to hear you speak about the fact that there is a major gun problem in this country. I've never really met someone so neglectful when it comes to current events and what is going on in many communities.

Citizens have the right to call for stricter gun laws in this country given that the US is at the top of most crime lists.

It might not be the gun holder's problem legally, but I'd hope most gun owners would question their own intentions and their need to be carrying a gun on a campus at the expense of others.

You just stated that people shouldn't be asking whether colleges should permit guns on campus. I can quote you if you'd like...I don't pull things out of thin air like you do. I can back my stuff up.

Your analogies are just plain stupid, to be honest and blunt with you. I don't think the vast majority of people place the danger of high heels on the same level as the danger of lethal weapons. I'm sure you don't either, but you are too naive and ignorant to say so.

Please tell me also, in what universe is carrying a weapon safe. There are times weapons go off in people's pockets...is carrying a gun safe then?

I have every right to wonder if a school should permit guns on campus Aaron, thank you very much. That is my freedom and right as a citizen living in this country who wants to be safe from lax gun laws. Gun owners aren't the only ones who need to be protected, sorry.

The issue of students now having to take the presence of guns as another factor contributing to their college decisions is one of the reasons I find this whole guns on campus thing ridiculous. People, for the most part from privilege, want to argue that all people have the choice to pick whatever college they want. This is not correct...things such as location and finances could severely limit someone's choices...and I find it appalling that some might argue that a person in this predicament can choose not to go to college at all if they don't want to be around guns while on campus. Don't really know when gun owners' rights become more important than equal access to education for all.

A police would have the right to take your gun away if you are carrying it into an area where it may be banned. Don't really thing the argument I am making is that hard to understand. You rather choose to be hard-headed and not fully digest what people are saying to you.

Again, both Two Espressos and I would like you to show us the specific posts you are referring to that propose violence against gun owners. I don't accept your "many americans feel that way" distraction when you have decided to paint specific posters in this thread as thugs.

Also Aaron...you can go around thinking that police are all just hired thugs, sent my gun-opposing citizens, that you don't have to answer to. Hope this works out for you.

Just because I've said that colleges have the choice to permit guns on campus doesn't mean I support guns being on campus...honestly I find it foolish and dangerous.

You can go on believing that you have the "right" to carry your gun anywhere you please. Truth is, you don't. Given that there are other lives around you, that are just as important as yours, police officers have every right to take away your weapon if you refuse to do so peacefully. And by the way...thanks for supporting my belief that not all gun owners have enough common sense to be owning one. Police officers come to take your gun away if you have one someplace that would make it illegal, and your response--being the law-abiding gun-carrying citizen you are-- is to shoot them? Although there would be innocent bystanders around? Yeah, that makes sense.

Actually, I don't think one single poster ever brought up the idea of violence toward gun holders.I think it is your obligation as a grad forum poster to look at people's comments carefully before your bring up an accusation as serious as the one you are bringing forth now. We are all educated people here...even those who oppose guns. I don't think anyone would be that outlandish to suggest that thugs be sent to colleges that legalize gun carrying. That's absurd.

I don't think there is anything violent about people who desire stricter laws on guns which would limit their accessibility. Whether people want to face it or not, the US is high on the list when it comes to crime...obviously our current gun laws has something to do with it. I feel that those in opposition to current gun laws are not out to physically harm gun holders, we would like to voice our opposition through policy.I have trouble believing that an overwhelming access to guns is going to make this country safer, and although campuses may have the right to endorse gun ownership on campus, I have the right as a citizen to voice my concerns against it, that is my prerogative.

Funny how Aaron doesn't want anyone to generalize gun owners...but he goes around generalizing people who oppose guns...we all are violent people who want to act through thugs to have guns removed. How silly and immature. Laws and bans are enforced all of the time without the use of thugs to carry them out. I also never said that gun-friendly campuses should be attacked...it's their prerogative to have guns on campus. I thought that the point of this thread was to discuss the reasons why guns would be permitted on campus, and what consequences may derive from this decision.